Discussion: Human Rights

[Denae]

Bump for an update from Ohio. . .

I just read a story in today's Columbus Dispatch regarding some issues I'd posted about earlier. Here's a summary:

A judge in Cleveland ruled that Ohio's gay-marriage ban means that the state's domestic-violence laws don't protect unmarried couples. The ruling stems from a case where a man was accused of beating his live-in girlfriend. The judge said that if the domestic-violence charge were allowed to stand, it "would recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals," which conflicts with Issue 1, passed in November.

The judge reduced the man's charge from felony domestic violence to misdemeanor assault. The prosecutors immediately appealed.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

I hope you keep us up-to-date on this thread Eilan. It always amazes me when domestic violence isn't treated as harshly as say two people on the street with no connection beating each other. Makes no sense to me.

It's my understanding that our legislature (Arizona) is currently working on toughening the laws on DV. It's certainly something I support and need to get my ass moving to let my local representative know my views.

 

[Eilan]

It's my understanding that our legislature (Arizona) is currently working on toughening the laws on DV. It's certainly something I support and need to get my ass moving to let my local representative know my views.

This is what's really interesting. In January of 2004, Ohio toughened the penalties for domestic violence. I think that a third offense is five years in prison (I'm not sure what happens for offenses 1 and 2).

What really sucks about the judge's ruling is that it takes longer to get a protection order again someone convicted of assault than it does if that person had been convicted of domestic violence.

I think that regardless of what happens to Ohio's gay-marriage amendment, the language in the domestic-violence statute needs to be changed. A lot of the controversy stems from how the definition of "family" is applied in domestic-violence situations. Apparently, with the passage of Issue 1, that definition is essentially null and void because the state no longer recognizes any nonmarital union.

 

[Denae]

This is what's really interesting. In January of 2004, Ohio toughened the penalties for domestic violence. I think that a third offense is five years in prison (I'm not sure what happens for offenses 1 and 2).

What really sucks about the judge's ruling is that it takes longer to get a protection order again someone convicted of assault than it does if that person had been convicted of domestic violence.

I think that regardless of what happens to Ohio's gay-marriage amendment, the language in the domestic-violence statute needs to be changed. A lot of the controversy stems from how the definition of "family" is applied in domestic-violence situations. Apparently, with the passage of Issue 1, that definition is essentially null and void because the state no longer recognizes any nonmarital union.

I've attended many hearings where people seek to obtain an Order of Protection. It seems to me that most people seeking them are in non-marital relationships, usually boyfriends/girlfriends, paternity cases and the like.

It's surprising to me that your state has made it harder to obtain a protection order on one group of cases as opposed to DV. Great that they made the penalty tougher on DV, but strange that it would be hard to obtain an order on someone who has already been convicted--doesn't make sense. But then again, there's often a lot of logic missing when they make these laws.

 

[Eilan]

It's surprising to me that your state has made it harder to obtain a protection order on one group of cases as opposed to DV.

It's not intended to be more difficult, but apparently this judge's ruling will make it so. It shouldn't be difficult, period.

But then again, there's often a lot of logic missing when they make these laws.

Isn't that the truth? I don't understand why laws can't be written in a more straightforward manner that isn't subject to so much interpretation. That's the problem with the domestic violence case here in Ohio. Some guy's attorney saw the wording of the new amendment as a way to get his client off the hook, and it worked. For now, anyway.

 

[Eilan]

Today's paper reveals yet another new Ohio development:

In the Columbus area, a judge refused to dismiss domestic violence charges against a man who poured hot coffee on his girlfriend and then beat her. He said that the gay-marriage ban has no effect on the law, which is in direct contrast to what the Cleveland judge ruled.

I think the higher courts are going to end up dealing with this issue.

 

[tsk3us]

Question: I'm not sure that anyone can answer this for me, however, I would be interested to see the following:

If a man/woman goes into a court house (totally and completely keeping church/religion out of their ceremony), and are 'joined' - what type piece of paper do they receive?

In Ohio - it's a marriage license - not a Civil Union paper. And, I would hazzard a guess, that the majority of states are the same.

Thusly, that would also imply that "marriage" does not (at this point in time in most states) follow along with Catharine's definition/difference between Civil Union vs. Marriage.

My suggestion......open marriage up to any two individuals wishing to bind their lives together in a legal (state) ceremony. Giving all those wishing so, the right to be 'partnered' with the person of their choosing, and to leave the marriage - use legal channels as well.

Those wishing to have their marriage blessed by the church, by all means...do it in addition to the state ceremony.


My family is my family (in my heart) - I think it's BULL that the government or any church or person - can tell me otherwise because of THEIR issues.

 

[tsk3us]

Technologically we are one of the most advanced countries on the planet. Sociologically we are one of the most stunted and retarded.

This is another nice little issue. For being the most technologicallyh advanced - our country, for all intents and purposes, has made no advances or forward steps in decades.

When once considers what assets we, as a country have available to us, you'd think that we could make strides with forward momentum, however, we seem to continually be pulled back. A good example - human rights! We've made no strides in human rights since the civil rights movement of the 60's/70's. We have been pulled back into, what seems like an unending cycle, of conservatives trying to take us back and divide us as a nation, as a people.

Amazingly, I had a foreign friend of mine point this out to me recently. Upon much consideration - it definitely seems to be so.

 

[tsk3us]

Bob, most people in this country consider themselves Christians.

I know politicians are supposed to vote for us - their constituents - (yea, in a perfect society), even if that were the case, most of the constituentency has Christian beliefs, so how do you see things changing.

Now, the crap that has happened with Spongebob and Arthur are not really something to be feared - the media (a very liberal media) played that up a lot. So I discount that totally ......it was stupid, I think that is fair to discount.

But if the majority of this country wants 'under God' in the pledge, or 'In God we trust' on the money, isn't it the will of the people?

The will of the people (at this particular time in history), shouldn't override the Constitution. Unfortunately, the elected 'boobs' are in fact, trying to amend the Constitution.

 

[tsk3us]

This is something that I can't even begin to understand. Especially when the people who are supposed to be PROTECTING those children are the ones perpetuating the abuse. I read a story recently about a 6-month old from Texas who'd not only been sexually assaulted, but who had a skull fracture, broken legs, ribs, etc. . . Her parents were in custody.

It just makes me FURIOUS! I would kill (or be killed) to prevent that from happening to my kids.

And the Religious Right thinks that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be parents! Hmmm, I don't suppose they'd (religious right) would be agreeable to having these two spayed and neutered, huh? Ohhh, no, we couldn't do that - it would infringe upon their human rights.

Look what some hetero's allow to happen to their children. Parentage shouldn't be about sex or the ability to procreate, it is the ability to love and nurture.

 

[Cathleen]

Question: I'm not sure that anyone can answer this for me, however, I would be interested to see the following:

If a man/woman goes into a court house (totally and completely keeping church/religion out of their ceremony), and are 'joined' - what type piece of paper do they receive?

In Ohio - it's a marriage license - not a Civil Union paper. And, I would hazzard a guess, that the majority of states are the same.

Thusly, that would also imply that "marriage" does not (at this point in time in most states) follow along with Catharine's definition/difference between Civil Union vs. Marriage.

My suggestion......open marriage up to any two individuals wishing to bind their lives together in a legal (state) ceremony. Giving all those wishing so, the right to be 'partnered' with the person of their choosing, and to leave the marriage - use legal channels as well.

Those wishing to have their marriage blessed by the church, by all means...do it in addition to the state ceremony.


My family is my family (in my heart) - I think it's BULL that the government or any church or person - can tell me otherwise because of THEIR issues.

I totally agree. I've seen the error of my verbage as well as other things.

 

[Cathleen]

This is another nice little issue. For being the most technologicallyh advanced - our country, for all intents and purposes, has made no advances or forward steps in decades.

When once considers what assets we, as a country have available to us, you'd think that we could make strides with forward momentum, however, we seem to continually be pulled back. A good example - human rights! We've made no strides in human rights since the civil rights movement of the 60's/70's. We have been pulled back into, what seems like an unending cycle, of conservatives trying to take us back and divide us as a nation, as a people.

Amazingly, I had a foreign friend of mine point this out to me recently. Upon much consideration - it definitely seems to be so.

This is an interesting issue. I hadn't really considered the matter of the advancement of technology. (For my money, I'm already so far behind the learning curve... lol).

When it comes to the social issues facing our country and our world there is so much to be done. I want to believe that at the heart of the matter we all really do want the same thing - to be accepted as we are, to be able to live peacefully, and to be able to contribute something of substance to the world.

How we go about these things seems assbackwards. We fight, go behind backs, sling mud etc., none of which is productive (not to mention being not in the spirit of the goal). I wonder if we can take our differences, put the personalities and egos aside, and work together - communicate with one another.

Easily our system of politics in the US has become so corrupt and ineffective, can it be saved? Should it be saved? It is a daunting thought.

 

[captain snakebite]

Having read this one with a bit of interest I'd like to ask a question: are 'Human Rights' 100% inalienable?

 

[Denae]

state-sanctioned sterilization

Whew, took me a while to find this buried thread. Here's hoping it will stay near the forefront of the HT Cafe.

I never thought in a million years that I'd ever want to the allow our government, be it at the state level or the federal level, have control over our bodies.

The more I see and hear of drug-addicted babies, women that can't or won't stay clean during the pregnancy, mothers and fathers who make and do their meth in the same room as the babies or children, the more I'm inclined to back state-sanctioned sterilization for these "parents."

 

[SweetErika]

Whew, took me a while to find this buried thread. Here's hoping it will stay near the forefront of the HT Cafe.

I never thought in a million years that I'd ever want to the allow our government, be it at the state level or the federal level, have control over our bodies.

The more I see and hear of drug-addicted babies, women that can't or won't stay clean during the pregnancy, mothers and fathers who make and do their meth in the same room as the babies or children, the more I'm inclined to back state-sanctioned sterilization for these "parents."

I agree, but on the flip side, what happens if a former offender comes clean and gets their life together?

Would forced (early-term) abortion be a part of it as well?

 

[Ricwilly]

I think if someone doesn't believe in gay marraige, they shouldn't marry a gay person.
They best way to solve this issue is for eveyone to mind their own business.
It seems that homophobia is the last acceptable predjudice. At least people look around and lower their voice before they start talking bad about another race. But people will still say "faggot" right out loud. A lot of people don't have any problem seeing gays as second class in our society and a very vocal group as no problem using "God" to say they shouldn't exist at all.
Oughta be a clue for us that we have to make laws to keep gays from getting married. LOL.

 

[Denae]

I agree, but on the flip side, what happens if a former offender comes clean and gets their life together?

Would forced (early-term) abortion be a part of it as well?

Good points which I hadn't considered.

Due to my line of work, I've become somewhat cynical about cleaning up on a long term basis. I know it can happen; it just seems staying "dirty" is the usual route.

I've definitely got some further thinking to do. Thank you Erika for responding and putting some good, hard questions to me.

 

[SweetErika]

Good points which I hadn't considered.

Due to my line of work, I've become somewhat cynical about cleaning up on a long term basis. I know it can happen; it just seems staying "dirty" is the usual route.

I've definitely got some further thinking to do. Thank you Erika for responding and putting some good, hard questions to me.

It's a fascinating topic, Denae, and I've often wondered why it's not at least promoted more. I'm guessing a lot of drug addicts get pregnant because they can't remember birth control. Maybe forcing a temporary, yet more effective long-term method like the IUD would be a good compromise, but it's a slippery slope.

Another question: What about all of the other "dirty" situations children are needlessly subjected to? If there was forced birth control for drug-related stuff, would we treat these types of situations in the same manner?
-Being brought into a home where there is a history of abuse.
-One that is so poverty-stricken the child will frequently go without any food.
-A parent is seriously mentally ill and can't meet the child's basic needs
-Subjected to pain, disability, or even death because the parent(s) reject basic medical care
-A woman who refuses to eat enough to provide basic nourishment to the fetus during pregnancy

 

[Eilan]

I never thought in a million years that I'd ever want to the allow our government, be it at the state level or the federal level, have control over our bodies.

This may be somewhat off-topic, but do you see reproduction as a privilege or a right?

I'm somewhat torn when it comes to this issue; I'll weigh in later when I've had a chance to think about it.

 

[Ricwilly]

I think people ought to have to take a class, pass a test and then get a license before they are allowed to reproduce, but I have no idea we could enforce it.

 

[Denae]

It's a fascinating topic, Denae, and I've often wondered why it's not at least promoted more. I'm guessing a lot of drug addicts get pregnant because they can't remember birth control. Maybe forcing a temporary, yet more effective long-term method like the IUD would be a good compromise, but it's a slippery slope.

Another question: What about all of the other "dirty" situations children are needlessly subjected to? If there was forced birth control for drug-related stuff, would we treat these types of situations in the same manner?
-Being brought into a home where there is a history of abuse.
-One that is so poverty-stricken the child will frequently go without any food.
-A parent is seriously mentally ill and can't meet the child's basic needs
-Subjected to pain, disability, or even death because the parent(s) reject basic medical care
-A woman who refuses to eat enough to provide basic nourishment to the fetus during pregnancy

Erika, as always, you bring some good points to the table. It definitely isn't just drugs that make a parent unfit.

I think your idea of perhaps an I.U.D. is best.

I think that many of the drug addicts, if they aren't taking birth control it is probably because that is the last thing they worry about. The major driving force is getting their next score.

The only sample you provided above that I cannot "penalize" the parent for is the one living in poverty. Personally, I would not have a child if I couldn't afford its basic needs or if I couldn't take care of my own. Many people, though, choose to do otherwise. I may not understand it and I can only hope that there is an abundance of love if not money in the home and hope they receive some type of assistance.

Abuse-don't even get me started. Like I said, I see it everyday and if it's not at work, it's on the news. In Arizona, the CPS workers have had their feet held to the flame and rightly so. I completely understand that they are overworked and there aren't enough caseworkers to fill the needs. The government is trying to overhaul the system here, as there have been several children returned to families who were later killed. Long story short-It is not always best to reunite the family.

This may be somewhat off-topic, but do you see reproduction as a privilege or a right?

I'm somewhat torn when it comes to this issue; I'll weigh in later when I've had a chance to think about it.

Eilan--your question made me think a lot last nght. I'm leaning toward it being a privilege. I wish most parents-to-be thought of it as being a privilege. I wish that they could see they are being given a gift, a treasure, a complete innocent to nurture and mold into a beautiful individual being. The child is a lifelong commitment, not a throwaway discardable object.

I wish people would take an objective look at themselves before having children. Really look within and determine if you have what it takes to be a loving parent. You don't have to be super mom or super dad.

Driving is a privilege. We have to take a test and receive a license before we can legally drive a car.

Isn't a child's life more precious than driving a car?

 

[SweetErika]

The only sample you provided above that I cannot "penalize" the parent for is the one living in poverty. Personally, I would not have a child if I couldn't afford its basic needs or if I couldn't take care of my own. Many people, though, choose to do otherwise. I may not understand it and I can only hope that there is an abundance of love if not money in the home and hope they receive some type of assistance.

You're absolutely right, and I've known several people who grew up nearly on love alone. I was more thinking about parents who choose poverty because they don't feel like working or won't get their children help. Also, those who spend what little they have on luxuries instead of basic needs...I have trouble seeing a valid argument for why they should be allowed to have kids. There's a distinction between parents who do their best with what they have and can get and those who don't really try.

 

[Eilan]

Eilan--your question made me think a lot last nght. I'm leaning toward it being a privilege. I wish most parents-to-be thought of it as being a privilege. I wish that they could see they are being given a gift, a treasure, a complete innocent to nurture and mold into a beautiful individual being. The child is a lifelong commitment, not a throwaway discardable object.

I wish people would take an objective look at themselves before having children. Really look within and determine if you have what it takes to be a loving parent. You don't have to be super mom or super dad.

Driving is a privilege. We have to take a test and receive a license before we can legally drive a car.

Isn't a child's life more precious than driving a car?

I have four children, and I would certainly resent someone else telling me (or even merely implying) that I have too many children. But I'm fortunate because my kids have everything they need and--thanks to their grandmas--a lot of the things they want. I'm also fortunate because my hubby and I have a financial situation which enables me to stay home with them without straining our budget.

When I posed my original question, I was thinking about a guy in my state who had seven (I think) children with several different women. He owed more than $30,000 in child support to all these women. A judge ruled that he would be found in contempt of court if he had any more children within a certain time frame. In the meantime, this guy married and wanted to have a child with his new wife, so he went to court to try to get the judge's ruling overturned. I don't remember how this case was resolved--I'll have to look it up.

I guess I'm not sure that this guy should be having more kids if he's not supporting the ones he has. Would it be fair to his other seven children if he's supporting baby #8 and not the others? But, then, is it fair to his wife to deny her the chance to have a baby? I probably wouldn't have married the guy in the first place, because I don't see him as overly responsible, but obviously he has some redeeming qualities in her eyes.

Perhaps if you abuse your privileges as a parent, you should lose the right to become one? I don't know. As the eternal fence-sitter when it somes to issues like this, I'm (obviously) reluctant to see it as a black-white matter.

I don't want people to receive the impression that I think I'm entitled to have as many kids as I want while other people aren't. It's not my intent to come off sounding like an elitist snob. Yes, I do have a big family, but my hubby and I were prepared to deal with it and we don't need or want help from others. And four's our limit--we're realistic about that.

However, I live in a rural area where the poverty level is well above our state/national average, and I see kids every day (some in my first-grader's class) who don't get the basics. In some cases, the parents work their asses off, and it's never quite enough; in other cases, the parents look for ways to get more money from the government.

 

[Denae]

This thread is worth a bump

What sent me in search of this buried thread is Dr. Jack Kevorkian's release from prison.

I want to hear your pro/con thoughts on assisted suicide.

I'm pro, but not getting into details right now as I need to get some things done before the end of the day.

Cate--this is a wonderful thread that I'd forgotten to a point. Each and every post has made me do some heavy thinking. Thank you for that.

 

[Bobmi357]

Whew, took me a while to find this buried thread. Here's hoping it will stay near the forefront of the HT Cafe.

I never thought in a million years that I'd ever want to the allow our government, be it at the state level or the federal level, have control over our bodies.

The more I see and hear of drug-addicted babies, women that can't or won't stay clean during the pregnancy, mothers and fathers who make and do their meth in the same room as the babies or children, the more I'm inclined to back state-sanctioned sterilization for these "parents."

Whoa... This is a hairy line to walk. From state sanctioned sterilizations (Which have been performed in this country), it's only a short walk to state sanctioned murder. Nazi Germany did this in the thirties by first working to "end the suffering" of people that were insane or mentally defective.

I'm in favor of a more darwinian approach. Remove the safety labels from EVERYTHING and let nature take it's course. If you're dumb enough to die from showering with your radio, that's your problem. Not mine and not the company that made the radio.

 

[Bobmi357]

This may be somewhat off-topic, but do you see reproduction as a privilege or a right?

I'm somewhat torn when it comes to this issue; I'll weigh in later when I've had a chance to think about it.

It's not a right. There is nothing that says when you are born that you WILL grow up someday to be a parent. There is no law, no amendment, nothing that says you have the right to raise children.

Propagation is an instinctual imperative imposed on the species by mother nature. Some species, like the Panda bear of china seem to have lost that imperative, which is one of the reasons why the Panda is so endangered. They have trouble breeding them in captivity and in the wild.

Humans on the other hand have no such loss of motivation, which explains the six billion people on this planet.

Legal rights come into play only in cases post conception. The few times state governments have tried to legislate who could have children and who couldn't, the courts overruled those laws.

The fact that you, Eilan, have grown up to have four kids of your own can be attributed to luck mostly. When you think about the number of people that go to their graves never having kids, you'll understand that it's just a case of nature doing what it does best. Selecting breeding stock.

I know, it's a cold view, but it makes sense.

-Bob